Posted on 02/07/2016 1:39:56 PM PST by conservativejoy
In the latest debate Donald Trump made it clear, once again, that not only he is not conservative, but he has absolutely no idea what conservatism is. When asked to define conservative, Trump, who usually gives expansive answers, could only manage to speak for less than 30 seconds before running out of ammo. His answer was that "Conservatism means... to conserve... your wealth".
That's not what conservatism is. A two year transfer student into Wharton College (with an uncle in MIT) should be able to give a better answer than that. Marco Rubio, perspiring like a fire hydrant, nonetheless came closer to the mark with his canned answer to the same question: "Conservatism means limited government, free enterprise, and a strong national defense." And he (or whoever prepared him with that answer) is right. Conservatism is about advocating the liberty of the individual and preventing the government from encrouching on it. Conservatism is about protecting private property rights and giving businesses the opportunity to grow without the stranglehold of regulation. It's also about protecting our country with a strong national defense. And, although it didn't occur to Marco or his debate prep team, it's also about adhering to what's in the Constitution.
But Donald Trump didn't raise any of these points. Since he's not and never been a conservative, he knows no more about conservatism than he knows about 'two corinthians'.
But this will not hurt him, because Trump's supporters, by and large, are not conservatives. It seems like a reason that he underperformed in Iowa was that he was competing with Marco Rubio for presumably more moderate voters, and when Marco Rubio surged, it was at Trump's expense.
If Trump supporters are not conservative, what are they? Well, polls have shown they are likely to be less educated than supporters of other candidates, but that doesn't really get to ideology.
Talk show host Mark Levin calls them "agrarian national populists", because of Trump's support for government regulation and subsidies for ethanol. While Trump compares himself to Ronald Reagan, Mark Levin compares him to Richard Nixon, not for Nixon's criminality, but for Nixon's ideological flexibility.
"This is this populism thing," he said. "It's not populism. It's pandering. And let me tell you something else - if you believe in our constitutional system and people say they do, the Constitution is not about populism. It's not about pluralism. It's about liberty. You cannot have a majority of people voting whether or not you have unalienable rights. You have unalienable rights no matter what anybody says. They belong to you. Are we supposed to shred it? Are we supposed to give it up? Is that ideological purity, a phrase that everybody is throwing around now? No we want 1980, not 1968 - 1980, not 1968. We're not ideological purists. We're conservatives."
In the past I've compared Trump supporters to "whateverists", the cult of personality around Chairman Mao who approved of whatever Chairman Mao said because they were so enthralled with Mao. To a lesser extent, this kind of cult of personality is what draws in Trump supporters and makes issues such as "conservatism" and "constitutionalism" irrelevant.
Exit question: If you support Donald Trump, as long as he secures the border, are you content to let him do whatever he thinks is right, even if that isn't defined before he gets elected?
(Abridged version originally published in American Thinker)
Wow.
And from the looks of many threads and posts I read, plenty of people don’t give a damn whether he’s conservative, or not. Baffling.
Trump said conservatism means conserving the nation. I think the average voter prefers to hear that than ticking off a list from a power point presentation. Were Trump were to say he intended to take steps to conserve his company, people would recognize what he had in mind — do what is necessary.
Saving our country is good enough for me.
That’s the bottom line of conservatism AFAIC.
Trumps God is Money. His line of thought goes not further than that.
Actually he said it’s to conserve your money, conserve your wealth- so important he said it twice.
If you are going to take an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution, shouldn’t you know what’s in it? I realize they didn’t teach that at Wharton, but he needs to learn a lot more than he does now to be President.
One’s wealth is essentially the DISTILLATION of the finite TIME of one’s LIFE a person has invested in attaining it.
The Cliff Note version: One’s wealth/assets are a representation of one’s LIFE!!
Socialists DO NOT understand than and NEVER WILL!!
I realize that Trump’s God is money, but Conservatism is a lot more than that. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does Two Corinthians.
Correct, however the lives of our children and grand children can be enhanced by providing them better opportunities. One of my kids is finishing law college, other is doing cancer research after a degree in biology. Both have zero student loans. 70% of college graduates have student loans these days. Without having worked hard in my own life, and earned more than average wages, I could never have been able to help my kids through college and avoid student loans. The default rate on student loans is currently 11%, and the total student loan is $1300 Billion. It is the next time bomb ticking.
Yes, money is not everything, but it has value.
So, obviously, for you, conservatism means destroying wealth. Brilliant, positively brilliant.
Right now we need a head ripping problem solver. That would be Trump. :-)
“I think it’s a really really great Preamble. I like it, I mean, it’s really fantastic. Really one of the best Preambles out there. And people tell me so, really really smart, great people.” (imagined Trump speech on the Constitution...)
Trump is an ignoramus. If there were only two, three, or maybe four people participating in the debates, it would become blatantly obvious how little he knows and understands. In a two person debate, as in the general election, he would be shredded even by Hillary or Sanders. If Republicans really don’t want Trump as the nominee, the minor candidates need to drop out as soon as possible, so Trump will have to fill more time in the remaining Republican debates.
I doubt Andy Jackson could either. So?
F—It was deliberately misleading for maximum effect.
you seem to always be right and seem to know what’s best for people and situations.
I like imperfect people.
They are more enjoyable.
You must be supporting Trump. He’s clueless, so he should be up your alley.
Oh you mean like the DIC?
agreed
The same recycled b.s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.